CRM-M-18588 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 236 GURIQBAL SINGH STATE OF CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 36 dated 03.03.2025 under Sections 22- Hakima, District Amritsar. 2. on 03.03.2025, when the police party was on patrolling duty, they apprehended the petitioner on suspicion and, during checking, recover 1,000 intoxicant tablets from him. 3. has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and that the entire story is concocted and manipulated. He contends that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of the 18588 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GURIQBAL SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG Punjab. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 36 dated 03.03.2025 under -C/61/85 of the NDPS Act, registered a Hakima, District Amritsar. Brief facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are that on 03.03.2025, when the police party was on patrolling duty, they apprehended the petitioner on suspicion and, during checking, recover 1,000 intoxicant tablets from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and that the entire story is concocted and manipulated. He contends that the mandatory ovisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18588 of 2026 Date of decision: 21.05.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG Punjab. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 36 dated 03.03.2025 under C/61/85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Gate Brief facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are that on 03.03.2025, when the police party was on patrolling duty, they apprehended the petitioner on suspicion and, during checking, recovered Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and that the entire story is concocted and manipulated. He contends that the mandatory ovisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of the The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 36 dated 03.03.2025 under t Police Station Gate Brief facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are that on 03.03.2025, when the police party was on patrolling duty, they ed Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and that the entire story is concocted and manipulated. He contends that the mandatory ovisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of the PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.22 18.09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-18588 of 2026 alleged search and seizure. He further contends that no independent witness was joined at the time of the alleged recovery. He argued that there was non compliance with Section 50 of the ND petitioner during the personal search and no Gazetted Officer was called to the spot. He submits that the investigation in the present case is complete, charges have been framed, and there are total of 21 prosecution wi out of whom only one has been examined so far. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents and that nothing more is to be recovered from him. He further submits that the petitioner is behind bars since 03.03.2025 and since the petitioner has already suffered the agony of prolonged custody during trial. Hence, he prays that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of bail. 4. status report in the matter, which are taken on record. Relying upon the same, he has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the nature and that the recovered contraband in the present case falls within the commercial quantity category. Hence, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act operates. He argues that, as far as compliance with Section 50 is concerned, the present case pertains to a chance recovery, and the Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that, in cases of chance recovery, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory. Hence, he prays that the present petition be dismissed. 5. Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 18588 of 2026 -2- alleged search and seizure. He further contends that no independent witness was joined at the time of the alleged recovery. He argued that there was non compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as no offer was given to the petitioner during the personal search and no Gazetted Officer was called to the spot. He submits that the investigation in the present case is complete, charges have been framed, and there are total of 21 prosecution wi out of whom only one has been examined so far. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents and that nothing more is to be recovered . He further submits that the petitioner is behind bars since 03.03.2025 and the conclusion of the trial will take a considerable since the petitioner has already suffered the agony of prolonged custody . Hence, he prays that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of bail. Learned State Counsel has filed the custody certificate and status report in the matter, which are taken on record. Relying upon the same, he has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the nature and that the recovered contraband in the present case falls within the commercial quantity category. Hence, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act operates. He argues that, as far as compliance with Section 50 is , the present case pertains to a chance recovery, and the Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that, in cases of chance recovery, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory. Hence, he prays that the present petition be dismissed. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. alleged search and seizure. He further contends that no independent witness was joined at the time of the alleged recovery. He argued that there was non- PS Act, as no offer was given to the petitioner during the personal search and no Gazetted Officer was called to the spot. He submits that the investigation in the present case is complete, charges have been framed, and there are total of 21 prosecution witnesses, out of whom only one has been examined so far. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents and that nothing more is to be recovered . He further submits that the petitioner is behind bars since n of the trial will take a considerable long time since the petitioner has already suffered the agony of prolonged custody . Hence, he prays that the present petition be allowed and the State Counsel has filed the custody certificate and status report in the matter, which are taken on record. Relying upon the same, he has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and that the recovered contraband in the present case falls within the commercial quantity category. Hence, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act operates. He argues that, as far as compliance with Section 50 is , the present case pertains to a chance recovery, and the Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that, in cases of chance recovery, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory. Hence, he Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. alleged search and seizure. He further contends that no independent witness - PS Act, as no offer was given to the petitioner during the personal search and no Gazetted Officer was called to the spot. He submits that the investigation in the present case is complete, tnesses, out of whom only one has been examined so far. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents and that nothing more is to be recovered . He further submits that the petitioner is behind bars since long time since the petitioner has already suffered the agony of prolonged custody . Hence, he prays that the present petition be allowed and the State Counsel has filed the custody certificate and status report in the matter, which are taken on record. Relying upon the same, he has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of petitioner is serious in nature and that the recovered contraband in the present case falls within the commercial quantity category. Hence, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act operates. He argues that, as far as compliance with Section 50 is , the present case pertains to a chance recovery, and the Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that, in cases of chance recovery, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory. Hence, he Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.22 18.09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-18588 of 2026 The recovery effected from the petitioner falls within the category of commercial quantity and, therefore, th Act are clearly attracted. petitioner regarding alleged non does not merit acceptance, particularly in view of the factual matrix present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute the fact that the recovery in the instant matter was effected during routine patrolling and was, therefore, a case of chance recovery. The record further reveals that the contrab from the personal search of the petitioner in the strict sense contemplated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. was incidental and accidental in nature, the principal arg behalf of the petitioner loses its significance. It is well settled that the safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act are attracted only in cases involving personal search of the accused and not in cases of chance recovery. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1999 (6) SCC 172; Section 50 are confined to personal search. The said principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SCC 480, wherein the Court observed that where substance is a chance or accidental recovery, the rigours of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not apply. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sunil Kumar’s case, elaborately considered the scope and applicability of Section 50 in the context of chance recovery. The observations made therein can be aptly 18588 of 2026 -3- The recovery effected from the petitioner falls within the category of commercial quantity and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are clearly attracted. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding alleged non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not merit acceptance, particularly in view of the factual matrix present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute the fact that the recovery in the instant matter was effected during routine patrolling and was, therefore, a case of chance recovery. The record further reveals that the contraband was recovered from a polythene bag and not from the personal search of the petitioner in the strict sense contemplated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Once it is established that the recovery was incidental and accidental in nature, the principal arg behalf of the petitioner loses its significance. It is well settled that the safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act are attracted only in cases involving personal search of the accused and not in cases of chance n this regard, reliance can be placed upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999 (6) SCC 172; wherein it was authoritatively held that the provisions of Section 50 are confined to personal search. The said principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Sunil Kumar, 2014 (4) , wherein the Court observed that where substance is a chance or accidental recovery, the rigours of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not apply. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sunil Kumar’s case, elaborately considered the scope and applicability of Section 50 in the ext of chance recovery. The observations made therein can be aptly The recovery effected from the petitioner falls within the category of e rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS The contention raised by learned counsel for the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not merit acceptance, particularly in view of the factual matrix of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute the fact that the recovery in the instant matter was effected during routine patrolling and was, therefore, a case of chance recovery. The record further and was recovered from a polythene bag and not from the personal search of the petitioner in the strict sense contemplated Once it is established that the recovery was incidental and accidental in nature, the principal argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner loses its significance. It is well settled that the safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act are attracted only in cases involving personal search of the accused and not in cases of chance n this regard, reliance can be placed upon the Constitution Bench State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, wherein it was authoritatively held that the provisions of Section 50 are confined to personal search. The said principle was reiterated State of H.P. v. Sunil Kumar, 2014 (4) , wherein the Court observed that where the recovery of narcotic substance is a chance or accidental recovery, the rigours of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not apply. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sunil Kumar’s case, elaborately considered the scope and applicability of Section 50 in the ext of chance recovery. The observations made therein can be aptly The recovery effected from the petitioner falls within the category of e rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS The contention raised by learned counsel for the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute the fact that the recovery in the instant matter was effected during routine patrolling and was, therefore, a case of chance recovery. The record further and was recovered from a polythene bag and not from the personal search of the petitioner in the strict sense contemplated Once it is established that the recovery ument advanced on behalf of the petitioner loses its significance. It is well settled that the safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act are attracted only in cases involving personal search of the accused and not in cases of chance n this regard, reliance can be placed upon the Constitution Bench State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, wherein it was authoritatively held that the provisions of Section 50 are confined to personal search. The said principle was reiterated State of H.P. v. Sunil Kumar, 2014 (4) the recovery of narcotic substance is a chance or accidental recovery, the rigours of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not apply. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sunil Kumar’s case, elaborately considered the scope and applicability of Section 50 in the ext of chance recovery. The observations made therein can be aptly PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.22 18.09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-18588 of 2026 relied upon in the facts and circumstances of the present case. paragraphs are reproduced below: "1. recovery of narc would attract the provisions of Section and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). opinion, the in the negative by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh, 1999(3) RCR (Criminal) 533 : (1999)6 SCC 172. Chance recovery: 11. The State is in appeal against the acquittal of Sunil Kumar and the broad submission is that the recovery of charas from him was a chance recovery. Under these circumstances, in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Baldev Singh which endorsed the view taken in (Criminal) 736 : (1994)3 SCC 299 Kumar resulting in the recovery of contraband did not violate Section paragraph 25 in Balbir Singh which was also endorsed by the Constitution Bench. It was submitted that it is only after a chance or accidental recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance by any police offi would come into play. It is then that the empowered officer should be informed and that empowered officer should thereafter proceed 18588 of 2026 -4- relied upon in the facts and circumstances of the present case. paragraphs are reproduced below: 1. The question before us is whether the accidental or chance recovery of narcotic drugs during a personal or body search would attract the provisions of Section and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). opinion, the issue is no longer res integra having been answered in the negative by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh, 1999(3) RCR (Criminal) 533 : (1999)6 SCC 172. xxxx Chance recovery: 11. The State is in appeal against the acquittal of Sunil Kumar and the broad submission is that the recovery of charas from him was a chance recovery. Under these circumstances, in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Baldev Singh which endorsed the view taken in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994(1) RCR (Criminal) 736 : (1994)3 SCC 299 Kumar resulting in the recovery of contraband did not violate Section 50 of the Act. Reliance was placed by learned counsel on paragraph 25 in Balbir Singh which was also endorsed by the Constitution Bench. It was submitted that it is only after a chance or accidental recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance by any police officer that the provisions of the Act would come into play. It is then that the empowered officer should be informed and that empowered officer should thereafter proceed relied upon in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The relevant The question before us is whether the accidental or chance otic drugs during a personal or body search would attract the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). In our s integra having been answered in the negative by the Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999(3) RCR (Criminal) 533 : (1999)6 SCC 172. xxxx xxxx 11. The State is in appeal against the acquittal of Sunil Kumar and the broad submission is that the recovery of charas from him was a chance recovery. Under these circumstances, in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Baldev Singh which endorsed the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994(1) RCR (Criminal) 736 : (1994)3 SCC 299 the personal search of Sunil Kumar resulting in the recovery of contraband did not violate liance was placed by learned counsel on paragraph 25 in Balbir Singh which was also endorsed by the Constitution Bench. It was submitted that it is only after a chance or accidental recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic cer that the provisions of the Act would come into play. It is then that the empowered officer should be informed and that empowered officer should thereafter proceed The relevant The question before us is whether the accidental or chance otic drugs during a personal or body search of the Narcotic Drugs In our s integra having been answered State of Punjab v. 11. The State is in appeal against the acquittal of Sunil Kumar and the broad submission is that the recovery of charas from him was a chance recovery. Under these circumstances, in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Baldev Singh which endorsed the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994(1) RCR the personal search of Sunil Kumar resulting in the recovery of contraband did not violate liance was placed by learned counsel on paragraph 25 in Balbir Singh which was also endorsed by the Constitution Bench. It was submitted that it is only after a chance or accidental recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic cer that the provisions of the Act would come into play. It is then that the empowered officer should be informed and that empowered officer should thereafter proceed PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.22 18.09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-18588 of 2026 to investigate the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 12. The relevant follows : "(1) If a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the provisions of the NDPS Act makes a search or arrests a person in the normal course of investigation into an offence provisions of CrPC and when such search is completed at that stage section question of complying with the requireme arise. If during such search or arrest there is a chance recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then the police officer, who is not empowered, should inform the empowered officer who should thereafter proceed in ac provisions of the NDPS Act. If he happens to be an empowered officer also, then from that stage onwards, he should carry out the investigation in accordance with the other provisions of the NDPS Act." 13. In view of the opinion expressed High Court, we need to firstly understand what a `chance recovery' is. The next question would be whether the provisions of Section recovery. 14. The expression `chance recovery' has not been defined anywhere and its plain and simple meaning seems to be a recovery 18588 of 2026 -5- to investigate the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 12. The relevant extract of paragraph 25 of Balbir Singh reads as follows : "(1) If a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the provisions of the NDPS Act makes a search or arrests a person in the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offences as provided under the provisions of CrPC and when such search is completed at that stage section 50 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted and the question of complying with the requireme arise. If during such search or arrest there is a chance recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then the police officer, who is not empowered, should inform the empowered officer who should thereafter proceed in ac provisions of the NDPS Act. If he happens to be an empowered officer also, then from that stage onwards, he should carry out the investigation in accordance with the other provisions of the NDPS Act." 13. In view of the opinion expressed High Court, we need to firstly understand what a `chance recovery' is. The next question would be whether the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would apply when there is a chance ecovery. 14. The expression `chance recovery' has not been defined anywhere and its plain and simple meaning seems to be a recovery to investigate the matter in accordance with the provisions of the extract of paragraph 25 of Balbir Singh reads as "(1) If a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the provisions of the NDPS Act makes a search or arrests a person in the normal course of investigation or suspected offences as provided under the provisions of CrPC and when such search is completed at that of the NDPS Act would not be attracted and the question of complying with the requirements thereunder would not arise. If during such search or arrest there is a chance recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then the police officer, who is not empowered, should inform the empowered officer who should thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. If he happens to be an empowered officer also, then from that stage onwards, he should carry out the investigation in accordance with the other provisions of the NDPS 13. In view of the opinion expressed by the Trial Court and the High Court, we need to firstly understand what a `chance recovery' is. The next question would be whether the provisions of of the Act would apply when there is a chance 14. The expression `chance recovery' has not been defined anywhere and its plain and simple meaning seems to be a recovery to investigate the matter in accordance with the provisions of the extract of paragraph 25 of Balbir Singh reads as "(1) If a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the provisions of the NDPS Act makes a search or arrests a person in the normal course of investigation or suspected offences as provided under the provisions of CrPC and when such search is completed at that of the NDPS Act would not be attracted and the nts thereunder would not arise. If during such search or arrest there is a chance recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then the police officer, who is not empowered, should inform the empowered cordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. If he happens to be an empowered officer also, then from that stage onwards, he should carry out the investigation in accordance with the other provisions of the NDPS by the Trial Court and the High Court, we need to firstly understand what a `chance recovery' is. The next question would be whether the provisions of of the Act would apply when there is a chance 14. The expression `chance recovery' has not been defined anywhere and its plain and simple meaning seems to be a recovery PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.22 18.09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-18588 of 2026 made by chance or by accident or unexpectedly. In Kumar v. State, Panaji, Goa, 1995(2) RCR (Criminal) 599 : (1998)8 when a police officer "stumbles on" narcotic drugs when he makes a search. In 2006(2) Apex Criminal 214 : (2004) 13 SCC 608 officer, while se charas. This was treated as a `chance recovery'. 15. Applying this to the facts of the present appeal, it is clear that the police officers were looking for passengers who were travelling ticketless and n unexpectedly came across drugs carried by a passenger. This can only be described as a recovery by chance since they were neither looking for drugs nor expecting to find drugs carried by anybody. 16. It is not possible to since the police officers conducted a random search and had a "positive suspicion" that Sunil Kumar was carrying contraband, the recovery of charas from his person was not a chance recovery. The recovery of contraband the recovery of charas certainly was unexpected notwithstanding the submission that drugs are easily available in the Chamba area. The police officers had no reason to believe that Sunil Kumar was carrying any drugs and i set up in this appeal. It was plainly a chance or accidental or unexpected recovery of charas 18588 of 2026 -6- made by chance or by accident or unexpectedly. In Kumar v. State, Panaji, Goa, 1995(2) RCR (Criminal) 599 : (1998)8 SCC 655 this Court considered a chance recovery as one when a police officer "stumbles on" narcotic drugs when he makes a search. In Sorabkhan Gandhkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, 2006(2) Apex Criminal 214 : (2004) 13 SCC 608 officer, while searching for illicit liquor, accidentally found some charas. This was treated as a `chance recovery'. 15. Applying this to the facts of the present appeal, it is clear that the police officers were looking for passengers who were travelling ticketless and nothing more. They accidentally or unexpectedly came across drugs carried by a passenger. This can only be described as a recovery by chance since they were neither looking for drugs nor expecting to find drugs carried by anybody. 16. It is not possible to accept the view of the High Court that since the police officers conducted a random search and had a "positive suspicion" that Sunil Kumar was carrying contraband, the recovery of charas from his person was not a chance recovery. The recovery of contraband may not have been unexpected, but the recovery of charas certainly was unexpected notwithstanding the submission that drugs are easily available in the Chamba area. The police officers had no reason to believe that Sunil Kumar was carrying any drugs and i set up in this appeal. It was plainly a chance or accidental or unexpected recovery of charas - Sunil Kumar could well have been made by chance or by accident or unexpectedly. In Mohinder Kumar v. State, Panaji, Goa, 1995(2) RCR (Criminal) 599 : this Court considered a chance recovery as one when a police officer "stumbles on" narcotic drugs when he makes Sorabkhan Gandhkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, 2006(2) Apex Criminal 214 : (2004) 13 SCC 608 the police arching for illicit liquor, accidentally found some charas. This was treated as a `chance recovery'. 15. Applying this to the facts of the present appeal, it is clear that the police officers were looking for passengers who were othing more. They accidentally or unexpectedly came across drugs carried by a passenger. This can only be described as a recovery by chance since they were neither looking for drugs nor expecting to find drugs carried by anybody. accept the view of the High Court that since the police officers conducted a random search and had a "positive suspicion" that Sunil Kumar was carrying contraband, the recovery of charas from his person was not a chance recovery. may not have been unexpected, but the recovery of charas certainly was unexpected notwithstanding the submission that drugs are easily available in the Chamba area. The police officers had no reason to believe that Sunil Kumar was carrying any drugs and indeed that is also not the case set up in this appeal. It was plainly a chance or accidental or Sunil Kumar could well have been Mohinder Kumar v. State, Panaji, Goa, 1995(2) RCR (Criminal) 599 : this Court considered a chance recovery as one when a police officer "stumbles on" narcotic drugs when he makes Sorabkhan Gandhkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, the police arching for illicit liquor, accidentally found some 15. Applying this to the facts of the present appeal, it is clear that the police officers were looking for passengers who were othing more. They accidentally or unexpectedly came across drugs carried by a passenger. This can only be described as a recovery by chance since they were neither accept the view of the High Court that since the police officers conducted a random search and had a "positive suspicion" that Sunil Kumar was carrying contraband, the recovery of charas from his person was not a chance recovery. may not have been unexpected, but the recovery of charas certainly was unexpected notwithstanding the submission that drugs are easily available in the Chamba area. The police officers had no reason to believe that Sunil ndeed that is also not the case set up in this appeal. It was plainly a chance or accidental or Sunil Kumar could well have been PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.22 18.09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-18588 of 2026 carrying any other contraband such as, smuggled gold, stolen property or an illegal firearm or 17. We are not going into the issue whether the personal or body search of Sunil Kumar (without a warrant) was at all permitted by law under these circumstances. That was not an issue raised or canvassed before the Trial Court or the us, although it has been adverted to in the written submissions by learned counsel assisting us on behalf of Sunil Kumar. Applicability of Section 18. As far as the app recovery is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh. 19. It is true that Sunil Kumar beha which resulted in his personal search being conducted after he disembarked from the bus. However, there is no evidence to suggest that before he was asked to alight from the bus, the police officers were aware that he was carryin though the Chamba area may be one where such drugs are easily available. At best, it could be said the police officers suspected Sunil Kumar of carrying drugs and nothing more. Mere suspicion, even if it is `positive suspicion' or g equated with `reason to believe', Haryana, 1993(1) RCR (Criminal) 554 : 1993 Supp (2) SCC 497 SCC 234. 18588 of 2026 -7- carrying any other contraband such as, smuggled gold, stolen property or an illegal firearm or even some other drug. 17. We are not going into the issue whether the personal or body search of Sunil Kumar (without a warrant) was at all permitted by law under these circumstances. That was not an issue raised or canvassed before the Trial Court or the us, although it has been adverted to in the written submissions by learned counsel assisting us on behalf of Sunil Kumar. Applicability of Section 50 of the Act: 18. As far as the applicability of Section recovery is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh. 19. It is true that Sunil Kumar beha which resulted in his personal search being conducted after he disembarked from the bus. However, there is no evidence to suggest that before he was asked to alight from the bus, the police officers were aware that he was carryin though the Chamba area may be one where such drugs are easily available. At best, it could be said the police officers suspected Sunil Kumar of carrying drugs and nothing more. Mere suspicion, even if it is `positive suspicion' or g equated with `reason to believe', Haryana, 1993(1) RCR (Criminal) 554 : 1993 Supp (2) SCC 497 and Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant CIT, (1972) 3 SCC 234. These are two completely different concepts. I carrying any other contraband such as, smuggled gold, stolen even some other drug. 17. We are not going into the issue whether the personal or body search of Sunil Kumar (without a warrant) was at all permitted by law under these circumstances. That was not an issue raised or canvassed before the Trial Court or the High Court or even before us, although it has been adverted to in the written submissions by learned counsel assisting us on behalf of Sunil Kumar. of the Act: licability of Section 50 of the Act in a chance recovery is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh. 19. It is true that Sunil Kumar behaved in a suspicious manner which resulted in his personal search being conducted after he disembarked from the bus. However, there is no evidence to suggest that before he was asked to alight from the bus, the police officers were aware that he was carrying a narcotic drug, even though the Chamba area may be one where such drugs are easily available. At best, it could be said the police officers suspected Sunil Kumar of carrying drugs and nothing more. Mere suspicion, even if it is `positive suspicion' or grave suspicion cannot be equated with `reason to believe', Joti Parshad v. State of Haryana, 1993(1) RCR (Criminal) 554 : 1993 Supp (2) SCC Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant CIT, (1972) 3 These are two completely different concepts. It is this carrying any other contraband such as, smuggled gold, stolen 17. We are not going into the issue whether the personal or body search of Sunil Kumar (without a warrant) was at all permitted by law under these circumstances. That was not an issue raised or High Court or even before us, although it has been adverted to in the written submissions by of the Act in a chance recovery is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra in view of ved in a suspicious manner which resulted in his personal search being conducted after he disembarked from the bus. However, there is no evidence to suggest that before he was asked to alight from the bus, the police g a narcotic drug, even though the Chamba area may be one where such drugs are easily available. At best, it could be said the police officers suspected Sunil Kumar of carrying drugs and nothing more. Mere suspicion, rave suspicion cannot be Joti Parshad v. State of Haryana, 1993(1) RCR (Criminal) 554 : 1993 Supp (2) SCC Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant CIT, (1972) 3 t is this PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.22 18.09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-18588 of 2026 positive suspicion, and not any reason to believe, that led to the chance recovery of charas from the person of Sunil Kumar. 20. Similarly, the positive suspicion entertained by the police officers cannot be equated with prior information, Bhagwanjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 2006(1) Apex Criminal 445 : (2002) 8 SCC 327 prior information of the carrying of contraband drugs is laid down in the Act and it is nobody's case that that procedure followed, let alone contemplated. 21. since the police officers had a positive suspicion that Sunil Kumar was carrying some contraband, therefore, it could be said or assumed that they had r he was carrying charas or some other narcotic substance and so, before his personal or body search was conducted, the provisions of Section recovery of charas on the body or personal search of Sunil Kumar was clearly a chance recovery and, in view of Baldev Singh, it was not necessary for the police officers to comply with the provisions of Section 6. seeking bail mainly on the ground of that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial take time by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration are not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this 18588 of 2026 -8- positive suspicion, and not any reason to believe, that led to the chance recovery of charas from the person of Sunil Kumar. 20. Similarly, the positive suspicion entertained by the police officers cannot be equated with prior information, Bhagwanjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 2006(1) Apex Criminal 445 : (2002) 8 SCC 327. The procedure to be followed when there is prior information of the carrying of contraband drugs is laid down in the Act and it is nobody's case that that procedure followed, let alone contemplated. 21. We are not in agreement with since the police officers had a positive suspicion that Sunil Kumar was carrying some contraband, therefore, it could be said or assumed that they had reason to believe or prior information that he was carrying charas or some other narcotic substance and so, before his personal or body search was conducted, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act ought to hav recovery of charas on the body or personal search of Sunil Kumar was clearly a chance recovery and, in view of Baldev Singh, it was not necessary for the police officers to comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.” Furthermore, the trial is already underway and seeking bail mainly on the ground of their prolonged custody. It is trite law that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial take time by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration are not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made by positive suspicion, and not any reason to believe, that led to the chance recovery of charas from the person of Sunil Kumar. 20. Similarly, the positive suspicion entertained by the police officers cannot be equated with prior information, Bharatbhai Bhagwanjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 2006(1) Apex Criminal 445 : . The procedure to be followed when there is prior information of the carrying of contraband drugs is laid down in the Act and it is nobody's case that that procedure was the view of the High Court that since the police officers had a positive suspicion that Sunil Kumar was carrying some contraband, therefore, it could be said or eason to believe or prior information that he was carrying charas or some other narcotic substance and so, before his personal or body search was conducted, the provisions of the Act ought to have been complied with. The recovery of charas on the body or personal search of Sunil Kumar was clearly a chance recovery and, in view of Baldev Singh, it was not necessary for the police officers to comply with the provisions Furthermore, the trial is already underway and the petitioner is prolonged custody. It is trite law that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is likely to take time by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration are not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged context can be had to the observations made by positive suspicion, and not any reason to believe, that led to the 20. Similarly, the positive suspicion entertained by the police Bharatbhai Bhagwanjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 2006(1) Apex Criminal 445 : . The procedure to be followed when there is prior information of the carrying of contraband drugs is laid down was the High Court that since the police officers had a positive suspicion that Sunil Kumar was carrying some contraband, therefore, it could be said or eason to believe or prior information that he was carrying charas or some other narcotic substance and so, before his personal or body search was conducted, the provisions e been complied with. The recovery of charas on the body or personal search of Sunil Kumar was clearly a chance recovery and, in view of Baldev Singh, it was not necessary for the police officers to comply with the provisions is prolonged custody. It is trite law is likely to take time by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration are not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged context can be had to the observations made by PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.22 18.09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-18588 of 2026 the Hon'ble Sup @ Pappu Yadav, 2004 AIR(SC) 1866 State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC 242 Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC) 7. become a serious threat to society, particularly to the youth of the nation. The younger generation, which constitutes the backbone of the country, is being adversely affected by the increasing availability and c intoxicating substances. Drug abuse not only destroys the physical and mental health of individuals but also leads to an increase in crime, social instability, and economic deterioration. The Courts cannot remain oblivious to the devastating considering petitions for bail in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, the larger interest of society and the need to curb the spread of drug addiction amongst the youth are also requ 8. against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumst petition does not deserve to be allowed. 9. dismissed. 21.05.2026 Puneet 18588 of 2026 -9- the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Yadav, 2004 AIR(SC) 1866, Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC 242 Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC) Drug trafficking and the menace of narcotic substances have become a serious threat to society, particularly to the youth of the nation. The younger generation, which constitutes the backbone of the country, is being adversely affected by the increasing availability and c intoxicating substances. Drug abuse not only destroys the physical and mental health of individuals but also leads to an increase in crime, social instability, and economic deterioration. The Courts cannot remain oblivious to the devastating impact of narcotic drugs on society. Therefore, while considering petitions for bail in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, the larger interest of society and the need to curb the spread of drug addiction amongst the youth are also requ Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, quantity of recovery of the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the present petition being bereft of any merit, i) Whether speaking/reasoned? ii) Whether reportable? Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC 242 and State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). and the menace of narcotic substances have become a serious threat to society, particularly to the youth of the nation. The younger generation, which constitutes the backbone of the country, is being adversely affected by the increasing availability and consumption of intoxicating substances. Drug abuse not only destroys the physical and mental health of individuals but also leads to an increase in crime, social instability, and economic deterioration. The Courts cannot remain oblivious impact of narcotic drugs on society. Therefore, while considering petitions for bail in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, the larger interest of society and the need to curb the spread of drug addiction amongst the youth are also required to be kept in mind. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled recovery of the contraband coupled with the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition being bereft of any merit, is (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State through CBI v. and the menace of narcotic substances have become a serious threat to society, particularly to the youth of the nation. The younger generation, which constitutes the backbone of the country, is onsumption of intoxicating substances. Drug abuse not only destroys the physical and mental health of individuals but also leads to an increase in crime, social instability, and economic deterioration. The Courts cannot remain oblivious impact of narcotic drugs on society. Therefore, while considering petitions for bail in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, the larger interest of society and the need to curb the spread Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled coupled with the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant the is (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.22 18.09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment